Been going on about this for a while. All that pretentious rubbish about corn futures in Iowa and constitutional principles in New Hampshire may finally be brought to an end and we may get the views of States that actually represent a more significant tranche of the United States. This is surely a good thing.
It also means that the cheap and cheerful starting point of small town meetings and cheap adverts in low cost areas disappear. Serious candidates will now need real money before the starting gun is fired to have advertising in the most expensive markets in the US, they will need large scale organisations in places like California and they will need a large number of boots on the ground at an early stage managed from offices. This is not such a good thing making it far more difficult for break through candidates.
To me, this gives an enormous advantage to someone like Kamala Harris who already has such an organisation which has elected her senator of California. Admittedly getting elected as a democratic senator in Cal is not that hard but she must also have fought off internal candidates at some point. I don't see how some governor of some minor state or newbie congressman ever gets competitive with her. She still looks a steal to me for the nomination.
Biden is a very different guy than his 1970s incarnation (which is the source of his strongest negatives) - and the reason he's so popular in the party is that he made rather a good job of the thankless task of being Vice President. I'm not 100% convinced he'll run, but he is one of the favourites for a reason.
Been going on about this for a while. All that pretentious rubbish about corn futures in Iowa and constitutional principles in New Hampshire may finally be brought to an end and we may get the views of States that actually represent a more significant tranche of the United States. This is surely a good thing.
It also means that the cheap and cheerful starting point of small town meetings and cheap adverts in low cost areas disappear. Serious candidates will now need real money before the starting gun is fired to have advertising in the most expensive markets in the US, they will need large scale organisations in places like California and they will need a large number of boots on the ground at an early stage managed from offices. This is not such a good thing making it far more difficult for break through candidates.
To me, this gives an enormous advantage to someone like Kamala Harris who already has such an organisation which has elected her senator of California. Admittedly getting elected as a democratic senator in Cal is not that hard but she must also have fought off internal candidates at some point. I don't see how some governor of some minor state or newbie congressman ever gets competitive with her. She still looks a steal to me for the nomination.
I wouldn't say steal at current odds - she has yet to prove that she can be effective in a national campaign, and running for the nomination is a step above anything she's done before - but I don't disagree with the analysis.
[snip] The big challenge, it was put to me by someone who knows, was to allow the no dealers the opportunity to change their minds in an "honourable" way so that they don't lose face. I'm not sure that this has happened but I expect the narrative to build whereby such an excuse can be found.
It's a very sensible approach, but it's going to be darned hard to find a plausible justification for an honourable U-turn.
'We've got to respect the will of the people, even if it's wrong.'
We've got to respect the will of the people, *precisely because* it's wrong. If you only do what the electorate wants when you happen to agree with it, you're not a democrat.
A real democrat respects the will of the people, especially when it's rabid, pig-ignorant and stultifyingly ill-informed.
[snip] The big challenge, it was put to me by someone who knows, was to allow the no dealers the opportunity to change their minds in an "honourable" way so that they don't lose face. I'm not sure that this has happened but I expect the narrative to build whereby such an excuse can be found.
It's a very sensible approach, but it's going to be darned hard to find a plausible justification for an honourable U-turn.
Why would the no-dealers want to U-turn now when they think they're on the cusp of victory?
[snip] The big challenge, it was put to me by someone who knows, was to allow the no dealers the opportunity to change their minds in an "honourable" way so that they don't lose face. I'm not sure that this has happened but I expect the narrative to build whereby such an excuse can be found.
It's a very sensible approach, but it's going to be darned hard to find a plausible justification for an honourable U-turn.
It can't be "otherwise catastrophe" because many will have dismissed qualms about no deal previously. Perhaps something like "this is an interim stage and the challenge will be to negotiate the actual deal" will allow them to pass the deal with the final agreement as the stated focus.
The other big challenge, it was mentioned, was the endless conflation between the WA and the FA.
Been going on about this for a while. All that pretentious rubbish about corn futures in Iowa and constitutional principles in New Hampshire may finally be brought to an end and we may get the views of States that actually represent a more significant tranche of the United States. This is surely a good thing.
It also means that the cheap and cheerful starting point of small town meetings and cheap adverts in low cost areas disappear. Serious candidates will now need real money before the starting gun is fired to have advertising in the most expensive markets in the US, they will need large scale organisations in places like California and they will need a large number of boots on the ground at an early stage managed from offices. This is not such a good thing making it far more difficult for break through candidates.
To me, this gives an enormous advantage to someone like Kamala Harris who already has such an organisation which has elected her senator of California. Admittedly getting elected as a democratic senator in Cal is not that hard but she must also have fought off internal candidates at some point. I don't see how some governor of some minor state or newbie congressman ever gets competitive with her. She still looks a steal to me for the nomination.
Remember this from January 2017 while Obama was still President?
The other big challenge, it was mentioned, was the endless conflation between the WA and the FA.
Plenty of that is deliberate on the Labour side, as there doesn't particularly look to be anything stopping them having a permanent CU (Indeed it looks a reasonably sensible route) after the transition period instead of a FTA. It also resolves the backstop.
As far as I can see, the wording of the Withdrawal Act and the Grieve Amendment will make it effectively impossible for the government to invite the House to vote again, because the House will simply amend it to say whatever they like.
May has precisely one chance to lose the meaningful vote, a chance she is seizing with a commendable aplomb.
Re the Dems, I only care that they pick someone who (metaphorically speaking) beats Trump to a pulp. If they need to go for an evangelical creationist, married with 2 wives and 13 children, who is pro-guns and anti-abortion and does not even know what LGBT stands for, that is ok by me so long as the beating to a pulp is administered. Trump as US president is something that genuinely upsets me. It upsets me far more than, for example, the prospect of a no deal Brexit and David Davis as PM. At least I can get my mind around that. Trump, I just can't. Trump Derangement Syndrome, I'm told, is what it is. TDS. Damn right. I would pay 10% of my personal wealth to see him gone. If I had a toothache, a bad one, and you gave me the choice of toothache gone or Trump gone, it's a no brainer. Trump. Gone. The thought of another 6 years of him, not only do I not want to think about that, I cannot think about it, because if I do, I start to question the point of it all. Oh god.
Been going on about this for a while. All that pretentious rubbish about corn futures in Iowa and constitutional principles in New Hampshire may finally be brought to an end and we may get the views of States that actually represent a more significant tranche of the United States. This is surely a good thing.
It also means that the cheap and cheerful starting point of small town meetings and cheap adverts in low cost areas disappear. Serious candidates will now need real money before the starting gun is fired to have advertising in the most expensive markets in the US, they will need large scale organisations in places like California and they will need a large number of boots on the ground at an early stage managed from offices. This is not such a good thing making it far more difficult for break through candidates.
To me, this gives an enormous advantage to someone like Kamala Harris who already has such an organisation which has elected her senator of California. Admittedly getting elected as a democratic senator in Cal is not that hard but she must also have fought off internal candidates at some point. I don't see how some governor of some minor state or newbie congressman ever gets competitive with her. She still looks a steal to me for the nomination.
Remember this from January 2017 while Obama was still President?
[snip] The big challenge, it was put to me by someone who knows, was to allow the no dealers the opportunity to change their minds in an "honourable" way so that they don't lose face. I'm not sure that this has happened but I expect the narrative to build whereby such an excuse can be found.
It's a very sensible approach, but it's going to be darned hard to find a plausible justification for an honourable U-turn.
Why would the no-dealers want to U-turn now when they think they're on the cusp of victory?
Well, some of them are genuine no-deal enthusiasts, for whom the only argument that might work would be 'sign up else Brexit is off', but most of the Tory MPs who have dissed the deal are more likely to be less extreme sorts who simply hadn't understood quite how big the disaster of no deal would be, and who were caught up in the mob attack on the deal.
However you look at it, though, the numbers are daunting.
[snip] The big challenge, it was put to me by someone who knows, was to allow the no dealers the opportunity to change their minds in an "honourable" way so that they don't lose face. I'm not sure that this has happened but I expect the narrative to build whereby such an excuse can be found.
It's a very sensible approach, but it's going to be darned hard to find a plausible justification for an honourable U-turn.
Why would the no-dealers want to U-turn now when they think they're on the cusp of victory?
Well, some of them are genuine no-deal enthusiasts, for who the only argument that might work would be 'sign up else Brexit is off', but most of the Tory MPs who have dissed the deal are more likely to be less extreme sorts who simply hadn't understood quite how big the disaster of no deal would be, and who were caught up in the mob attack on the deal.
However you look at it, though, the numbers are daunting.
In the meantime, a number of the more opportunistic cabinet members with leadership ambitions have been wilfully talking up the chances of a No Deal success.
Even if Cabinet were united in telling the Brexiteers that No Deal would be a disaster it wouldn't make any difference. Now in addition you've got Hunt and THE SAJ and whoever else whispering sweet no-deal nothings in their ears.
[snip] The big challenge, it was put to me by someone who knows, was to allow the no dealers the opportunity to change their minds in an "honourable" way so that they don't lose face. I'm not sure that this has happened but I expect the narrative to build whereby such an excuse can be found.
It's a very sensible approach, but it's going to be darned hard to find a plausible justification for an honourable U-turn.
Why would the no-dealers want to U-turn now when they think they're on the cusp of victory?
Well, some of them are genuine no-deal enthusiasts, for who the only argument that might work would be 'sign up else Brexit is off', but most of the Tory MPs who have dissed the deal are more likely to be less extreme sorts who simply hadn't understood quite how big the disaster of no deal would be, and who were caught up in the mob attack on the deal.
However you look at it, though, the numbers are daunting.
Referendum would solve it. I don't see any other way of settling the issue, outside of a general election - and the outcome of that would be even less certain.
[snip] The big challenge, it was put to me by someone who knows, was to allow the no dealers the opportunity to change their minds in an "honourable" way so that they don't lose face. I'm not sure that this has happened but I expect the narrative to build whereby such an excuse can be found.
It's a very sensible approach, but it's going to be darned hard to find a plausible justification for an honourable U-turn.
Why would the no-dealers want to U-turn now when they think they're on the cusp of victory?
Well, some of them are genuine no-deal enthusiasts, for whom the only argument that might work would be 'sign up else Brexit is off', but most of the Tory MPs who have dissed the deal are more likely to be less extreme sorts who simply hadn't understood quite how big the disaster of no deal would be, and who were caught up in the mob attack on the deal.
However you look at it, though, the numbers are daunting.
This will not be solved without May showing leadership, imagination and humility .
[snip] The big challenge, it was put to me by someone who knows, was to allow the no dealers the opportunity to change their minds in an "honourable" way so that they don't lose face. I'm not sure that this has happened but I expect the narrative to build whereby such an excuse can be found.
It's a very sensible approach, but it's going to be darned hard to find a plausible justification for an honourable U-turn.
Why would the no-dealers want to U-turn now when they think they're on the cusp of victory?
Well, some of them are genuine no-deal enthusiasts, for who the only argument that might work would be 'sign up else Brexit is off', but most of the Tory MPs who have dissed the deal are more likely to be less extreme sorts who simply hadn't understood quite how big the disaster of no deal would be, and who were caught up in the mob attack on the deal.
However you look at it, though, the numbers are daunting.
Referendum would solve it. I don't see any other way of settling the issue, outside of a general election - and the outcome of that would be even less certain.
Which would be fine if the eeijits who lost first time didn't want to use a referendum to overturn the previous decision.
A deal vs no deal referendum would be entirely legitimate. But the Commons will never approve it.
[snip] The big challenge, it was put to me by someone who knows, was to allow the no dealers the opportunity to change their minds in an "honourable" way so that they don't lose face. I'm not sure that this has happened but I expect the narrative to build whereby such an excuse can be found.
It's a very sensible approach, but it's going to be darned hard to find a plausible justification for an honourable U-turn.
Why would the no-dealers want to U-turn now when they think they're on the cusp of victory?
Well, some of them are genuine no-deal enthusiasts, for who the only argument that might work would be 'sign up else Brexit is off', but most of the Tory MPs who have dissed the deal are more likely to be less extreme sorts who simply hadn't understood quite how big the disaster of no deal would be, and who were caught up in the mob attack on the deal.
However you look at it, though, the numbers are daunting.
Referendum would solve it. I don't see any other way of settling the issue, outside of a general election - and the outcome of that would be even less certain.
Which would be fine if the eeijits who lost first time didn't want to use a referendum to overturn the previous decision.
A deal vs no deal referendum would be entirely legitimate. But the Commons will never approve it.
And if a referendum is the only way to avoid no deal ?
(And as we've discussed before, it doesn't have to be deal vs no deal in order to respect the first referendum vote.)
Referendum would solve it. I don't see any other way of settling the issue, outside of a general election - and the outcome of that would be even less certain.
A referendum could potentially solve it, at considerable cost to trust in democracy, but getting a referendum involves a series of steps none of which look politically easy, and choosing the options would be extremely contentious, especially if No Deal was excluded as it would have to be.
An election might well not help at all, but simply leave another stalemate. And what Brexit platforms would the two main parties run on? Neither is united around any coherent approach.
The other big challenge, it was mentioned, was the endless conflation between the WA and the FA.
Plenty of that is deliberate on the Labour side, as there doesn't particularly look to be anything stopping them having a permanent CU (Indeed it looks a reasonably sensible route) after the transition period instead of a FTA. It also resolves the backstop.
Yes this is a blue on blue issue. Lab will do what Lab do. While there is a sizeable number of Cons dissenters Lab can and will do all they can to dissent themselves.
[snip] The big challenge, it was put to me by someone who knows, was to allow the no dealers the opportunity to change their minds in an "honourable" way so that they don't lose face. I'm not sure that this has happened but I expect the narrative to build whereby such an excuse can be found.
It's a very sensible approach, but it's going to be darned hard to find a plausible justification for an honourable U-turn.
Why would the no-dealers want to U-turn now when they think they're on the cusp of victory?
Well, some of them are genuine no-deal enthusiasts, for who the only argument that might work would be 'sign up else Brexit is off', but most of the Tory MPs who have dissed the deal are more likely to be less extreme sorts who simply hadn't understood quite how big the disaster of no deal would be, and who were caught up in the mob attack on the deal.
However you look at it, though, the numbers are daunting.
Referendum would solve it. I don't see any other way of settling the issue, outside of a general election - and the outcome of that would be even less certain.
Which would be fine if the eeijits who lost first time didn't want to use a referendum to overturn the previous decision.
A deal vs no deal referendum would be entirely legitimate. But the Commons will never approve it.
A three way referendum is perfectly fine. Remaining is a viable option and people are entitled to choose it if they want.
» show previous quotes Disagree. I would always vote Tory rather than SNP - or Plaid.
You surprise me!
Richard_Nabavi said:
» show previous quotes It's not her counting down the clock, though. She's all keen to get the deal agreed and to move on to the next stage. It's her opponents who are preventing that.
But, yes you are right, all options are impossible, which means that we are at very substantial risk of falling accidentally into the unquestionably worst of all the bad routes we could have taken.
It is only her pig headedness that is causing the problem, time she was gone. Running down the clock is despicable and deserves her getting "No Deal" and eternal vilification.
IanB2 said:
» show previous quotes Cut him some slack; you may have missed his sharing that one side of his brain runs slow.
Ian, I chastised you on this previously, I never said such a thing. I said one side ran slower than the other but as that other side was above supersonic/light speed the other one even if slower is still very very fast. Take 10 lines, in your best writing do "I must not tell porkies again about Malkie's brain speed".
Richard_Nabavi said:
» show previous quotes It's rather naive to think that the deal doesn't command a majority because it has fundamental flaws. It doesn't command a majority because various different groups of MPs have contradictory agendas, and because Labour are opposing it for the sake of opposing it.
It is bollox , no one could make a silk purse out of that sows ear of a deal. A pox on your propaganda.
Theuniondivvie said:
» show previous quotes What about British nationalism? An oft heard cry from Labour Unionists during the indy ref was that Scottish independence would make family foreigners (Tony Benn & Margaret Curran spring to mind as producers of that sort of guff). Why is being a foreigner so bad, and why should a Glasgow scaffolder feel more internationalist solidarity with one from Gloucester than he would with ones from Galway or Göttingen?
TUD , they need the last remnant of the Empire to make them feel good.
Gallowgate said:
» show previous quotes Because the common man in Berwickshire and the common man in Northumberland are culturally and linguistically one and the same.
Hmmmm, you listening to Land of Hope and Glory as you post that. Utter bollox.
[snip] The big challenge, it was put to me by someone who knows, was to allow the no dealers the opportunity to change their minds in an "honourable" way so that they don't lose face. I'm not sure that this has happened but I expect the narrative to build whereby such an excuse can be found.
It's a very sensible approach, but it's going to be darned hard to find a plausible justification for an honourable U-turn.
Why would the no-dealers want to U-turn now when they think they're on the cusp of victory?
Well, some of them are genuine no-deal enthusiasts, for who the only argument that might work would be 'sign up else Brexit is off', but most of the Tory MPs who have dissed the deal are more likely to be less extreme sorts who simply hadn't understood quite how big the disaster of no deal would be, and who were caught up in the mob attack on the deal.
However you look at it, though, the numbers are daunting.
Referendum would solve it. I don't see any other way of settling the issue, outside of a general election - and the outcome of that would be even less certain.
Which would be fine if the eeijits who lost first time didn't want to use a referendum to overturn the previous decision.
A deal vs no deal referendum would be entirely legitimate. But the Commons will never approve it.
And if a referendum is the only way to avoid no deal ?
(And as we've discussed before, it doesn't have to be deal vs no deal in order to respect the first referendum vote.)
The people have voted to leave. No conditions or expectations.
So the only legitimate vote is deal vs no deal.
Anything that includes remain as an option is just an attempt to overturn the result.
It might have been different if Adonis and his ilk hadn't spent the last 2 years creating a situation where the perception was that the "establishment" didn't want to decision to leave to be implemented
[snip] The big challenge, it was put to me by someone who knows, was to allow the no dealers the opportunity to change their minds in an "honourable" way so that they don't lose face. I'm not sure that this has happened but I expect the narrative to build whereby such an excuse can be found.
It's a very sensible approach, but it's going to be darned hard to find a plausible justification for an honourable U-turn.
Why would the no-dealers want to U-turn now when they think they're on the cusp of victory?
Well, some of them are genuine no-deal enthusiasts, for who the only argument that might work would be 'sign up else Brexit is off', but most of the Tory MPs who have dissed the deal are more likely to be less extreme sorts who simply hadn't understood quite how big the disaster of no deal would be, and who were caught up in the mob attack on the deal.
However you look at it, though, the numbers are daunting.
Referendum would solve it. I don't see any other way of settling the issue, outside of a general election - and the outcome of that would be even less certain.
Which would be fine if the eeijits who lost first time didn't want to use a referendum to overturn the previous decision.
A deal vs no deal referendum would be entirely legitimate. But the Commons will never approve it.
No it wouldn't. What exactly would be on the ballot paper for "no deal"? No deals whatsoever for anything? No agreements, temporary or otherwise, allowed to be negotiated or concluded? No acceptance of the EU's no deal measures?
It is a nonsensical instruction to a government that would be impossible to carry out.
Referendum would solve it. I don't see any other way of settling the issue, outside of a general election - and the outcome of that would be even less certain.
A referendum could potentially solve it, at considerable cost to trust in democracy, but getting a referendum involves a series of steps none of which look politically easy, and choosing the options would be extremely contentious, especially if No Deal was excluded as it would have to be.
In addition, it would require an Article 50 extension and the only way the Council would agree to that would ONLY be if the referendum were The Deal vs Remain, which would receive a large leaver boycott ensuring it has no legitimacy whatsoever.
[snip] The big challenge, it was put to me by someone who knows, was to allow the no dealers the opportunity to change their minds in an "honourable" way so that they don't lose face. I'm not sure that this has happened but I expect the narrative to build whereby such an excuse can be found.
It's a very sensible approach, but it's going to be darned hard to find a plausible justification for an honourable U-turn.
Why would the no-dealers want to U-turn now when they think they're on the cusp of victory?
Well, some of them are genuine no-deal enthusiasts, for who the only argument that might work would be 'sign up else Brexit is off', but most of the Tory MPs who have dissed the deal are more likely to be less extreme sorts who simply hadn't understood quite how big the disaster of no deal would be, and who were caught up in the mob attack on the deal.
However you look at it, though, the numbers are daunting.
Referendum would solve it. I don't see any other way of settling the issue, outside of a general election - and the outcome of that would be even less certain.
A referendum won't solve anything, is unlikely to be possible, and even if it were successfully legislated for it would almost certainly make matters worse rather than better.
If Parliament won't back the Deal then it should either resign itself to Hard Brexit, or revoke A50 and then submit to a General Election afterwards. MPs are elected and paid to take difficult decisions: there's no merit in throwing the issue back at the voters again (who might, BTW, be forgiven for asking if there was any point in voting on the same thing for a second time, when this had obviously only been asked of them because the politicians didn't want to hear what they had said the first time around.)
[snip] The big challenge, it was put to me by someone who knows, was to allow the no dealers the opportunity to change their minds in an "honourable" way so that they don't lose face. I'm not sure that this has happened but I expect the narrative to build whereby such an excuse can be found.
It's a very sensible approach, but it's going to be darned hard to find a plausible justification for an honourable U-turn.
Why would the no-dealers want to U-turn now when they think they're on the cusp of victory?
Well, some of them are genuine no-deal enthusiasts, for who the only argument that might work would be 'sign up else Brexit is off', but most of the Tory MPs who have dissed the deal are more likely to be less extreme sorts who simply hadn't understood quite how big the disaster of no deal would be, and who were caught up in the mob attack on the deal.
However you look at it, though, the numbers are daunting.
Referendum would solve it. I don't see any other way of settling the issue, outside of a general election - and the outcome of that would be even less certain.
[snip] The big challenge, it was put to me by someone who knows, was to allow the no dealers the opportunity to change their minds in an "honourable" way so that they don't lose face. I'm not sure that this has happened but I expect the narrative to build whereby such an excuse can be found.
It's a very sensible approach, but it's going to be darned hard to find a plausible justification for an honourable U-turn.
Why would the no-dealers want to U-turn now when they think they're on the cusp of victory?
Well, some of them are genuine no-deal enthusiasts, for who the only argument that might work would be 'sign up else Brexit is off', but most of the Tory MPs who have dissed the deal are more likely to be less extreme sorts who simply hadn't understood quite how big the disaster of no deal would be, and who were caught up in the mob attack on the deal.
However you look at it, though, the numbers are daunting.
Referendum would solve it. I don't see any other way of settling the issue, outside of a general election - and the outcome of that would be even less certain.
Which would be fine if the eeijits who lost first time didn't want to use a referendum to overturn the previous decision.
A deal vs no deal referendum would be entirely legitimate. But the Commons will never approve it.
No it wouldn't. What exactly would be on the ballot paper for "no deal"? No deals whatsoever for anything? No agreements, temporary or otherwise, allowed to be negotiated or concluded? No acceptance of the EU's no deal measures?
It is a nonsensical instruction to a government that would be impossible to carry out.
The question should be, on 29 March the UK should
Leave the EU with this deal Leave the EU without this deal Remain in the EU
These are the three things that could happen, we’re going to have to pick one. So let the people choose.
An informative and useful article, Mr. Smithson. I'll be a shade irked if Harris does get it, given my bet appears to have gone walkies from the Ladbrokes database. (I now keep a record of bet IDs).
Referendum would solve it. I don't see any other way of settling the issue, outside of a general election - and the outcome of that would be even less certain.
A referendum could potentially solve it, at considerable cost to trust in democracy, but getting a referendum involves a series of steps none of which look politically easy, and choosing the options would be extremely contentious, especially if No Deal was excluded as it would have to be...
I disagree; I think No Deal would have to be included both for reasons of getting agreement, and addressing the 'betrayal' claims. And the only way to defeat it. The couple of alternatives for a two part vote (which we've discussed before) would seem to have the best chance of gaining consent, and as a matter of practicality include the three possible outcomes actually on offer from the EU (ie May's Deal, No Deal, and Revoke A50).
What is clear is that the longer May draws out the process, the more determined the opposition to her deal becomes. It is the only practical way she can change the narrative.
We should remember that California and Texas are, in the Democrat race, both proportional primaries. This could actually work *against* O'Rouke and Harris as there'll be more candidates in the race when the states vote, and they could well wind up with fewer delegates than they otherwise would were the vote later on and still undecided. (For the Republicans, TX and CA are winner take most/all).
That said, I agree with those who said that the clustering of ever more votes, ever earlier in the cycle simply increases the importance of appearing a front-runner coming out of Iowa / New Hampshire.
Two other things will matter. Firstly, as ever, fundraising (though fat lot of use that did Jeb Bush), and secondly, the ability to look distinctive and attractive to a target audience in 10-second soundbites in 7+ way debates. I'm sure that's one reason that both Trump and Sanders did so well in 2016: simple solutions and soundbites stand out in a way that complex arguments don't.
[snip] The big challenge, it was put to me by someone who knows, was to allow the no dealers the opportunity to change their minds in an "honourable" way so that they don't lose face. I'm not sure that this has happened but I expect the narrative to build whereby such an excuse can be found.
It's a very sensible approach, but it's going to be darned hard to find a plausible justification for an honourable U-turn.
Why would the no-dealers want to U-turn now when they think they're on the cusp of victory?
Well, some of them are genuine no-deal enthusiasts, for who the only argument that might work would be 'sign up else Brexit is off', but most of the Tory MPs who have dissed the deal are more likely to be less extreme sorts who simply hadn't understood quite how big the disaster of no deal would be, and who were caught up in the mob attack on the deal.
However you look at it, though, the numbers are daunting.
Referendum would solve it. I don't see any other way of settling the issue, outside of a general election - and the outcome of that would be even less certain.
Which would be fine if the eeijits who lost first time didn't want to use a referendum to overturn the previous decision.
A deal vs no deal referendum would be entirely legitimate. But the Commons will never approve it.
No it wouldn't. What exactly would be on the ballot paper for "no deal"? No deals whatsoever for anything? No agreements, temporary or otherwise, allowed to be negotiated or concluded? No acceptance of the EU's no deal measures?
It is a nonsensical instruction to a government that would be impossible to carry out.
Under such circumstances the question on the ballot paper would simply be whether or not to approve the withdrawal agreement. The negative condition does not need to be defined, as it is simply what happens by default if the agreement is not approved.
Of course, this is all purely hypothetical anyway as no such referendum can occur.
[snip] The big challenge, it was put to me by someone who knows, was to allow the no dealers the opportunity to change their minds in an "honourable" way so that they don't lose face. I'm not sure that this has happened but I expect the narrative to build whereby such an excuse can be found.
It's a very sensible approach, but it's going to be darned hard to find a plausible justification for an honourable U-turn.
Why would the no-dealers want to U-turn now when they think they're on the cusp of victory?
Well, some of them are genuine no-deal enthusiasts, for who the only argument that might work would be 'sign up else Brexit is off', but most of the Tory MPs who have dissed the deal are more likely to be less extreme sorts who simply hadn't understood quite how big the disaster of no deal would be, and who were caught up in the mob attack on the deal.
However you look at it, though, the numbers are daunting.
Referendum would solve it. I don't see any other way of settling the issue, outside of a general election - and the outcome of that would be even less certain.
Which would be fine if the eeijits who lost first time didn't want to use a referendum to overturn the previous decision.
A deal vs no deal referendum would be entirely legitimate. But the Commons will never approve it.
No it wouldn't. What exactly would be on the ballot paper for "no deal"? No deals whatsoever for anything? No agreements, temporary or otherwise, allowed to be negotiated or concluded? No acceptance of the EU's no deal measures?
It is a nonsensical instruction to a government that would be impossible to carry out.
The government are right now making preparations to carry it out. Nonsense or not.
[snip] The big challenge, it was put to me by someone who knows, was to allow the no dealers the opportunity to change their minds in an "honourable" way so that they don't lose face. I'm not sure that this has happened but I expect the narrative to build whereby such an excuse can be found.
It's a very sensible approach, but it's going to be darned hard to find a plausible justification for an honourable U-turn.
Why would the no-dealers want to U-turn now when they think they're on the cusp of victory?
Well, some of them are genuine no-deal enthusiasts, for who the only argument that might work would be 'sign up else Brexit is off', but most of the Tory MPs who have dissed the deal are more likely to be less extreme sorts who simply hadn't understood quite how big the disaster of no deal would be, and who were caught up in the mob attack on the deal.
However you look at it, though, the numbers are daunting.
Referendum would solve it. I don't see any other way of settling the issue, outside of a general election - and the outcome of that would be even less certain.
Which would be fine if the eeijits who lost first time didn't want to use a referendum to overturn the previous decision.
A deal vs no deal referendum would be entirely legitimate. But the Commons will never approve it.
No it wouldn't. What exactly would be on the ballot paper for "no deal"? No deals whatsoever for anything? No agreements, temporary or otherwise, allowed to be negotiated or concluded? No acceptance of the EU's no deal measures?
It is a nonsensical instruction to a government that would be impossible to carry out.
The wording would be easy. If and when Parliament voted down the WA, and if it then voted through the legislation for a second referendum, the question on the ballot would read:
"Do you wish to remain in the European Union?" Yes/No.
[snip] The big challenge, it was put to me by someone who knows, was to allow the no dealers the opportunity to change their minds in an "honourable" way so that they don't lose face. I'm not sure that this has happened but I expect the narrative to build whereby such an excuse can be found.
It's a very sensible approach, but it's going to be darned hard to find a plausible justification for an honourable U-turn.
Why would the no-dealers want to U-turn now when they think they're on the cusp of victory?
Well, some of them are genuine no-deal enthusiasts, for who the only argument that might work would be 'sign up else Brexit is off', but most of the Tory MPs who have dissed the deal are more likely to be less extreme sorts who simply hadn't understood quite how big the disaster of no deal would be, and who were caught up in the mob attack on the deal.
However you look at it, though, the numbers are daunting.
Referendum would solve it. I don't see any other way of settling the issue, outside of a general election - and the outcome of that would be even less certain.
Which would be fine if the eeijits who lost first time didn't want to use a referendum to overturn the previous decision.
A deal vs no deal referendum would be entirely legitimate. But the Commons will never approve it.
No it wouldn't. What exactly would be on the ballot paper for "no deal"? No deals whatsoever for anything? No agreements, temporary or otherwise, allowed to be negotiated or concluded? No acceptance of the EU's no deal measures?
It is a nonsensical instruction to a government that would be impossible to carry out.
The question should be, on 29 March the UK should
Leave the EU with this deal Leave the EU without this deal Remain in the EU
These are the three things that could happen, we’re going to have to pick one. So let the people choose.
Well if you think of the difference between this deal and Chequers (ie not much) then you would be back where you started as the Govt contrived a verysimilarbutnotexactlythesame deal. Which I suppose would be fine but what a waste of time and, as I say, you would be back where you started.
If the deal doesn't pass (I still think it will) the only pragmatic (although wholly undesirable) option would be a deal/remain referendum.
An informative and useful article, Mr. Smithson. I'll be a shade irked if Harris does get it, given my bet appears to have gone walkies from the Ladbrokes database. (I now keep a record of bet IDs).
It'll still be there, they "hide" old bets now though - which whn they offer up markets such as Froome to win 5 TDFs offered back in 2013 is annoying.
We seem to have worked round to the answer: There Is No Alternative to the deal.
QED.
Now we just need MPs to be able to get there too. That might be too much of an ask, though.
You keep saying it, maybe trying to convince yourself, but despite he best efforts of your PM it still isn’t true.
It is true, unless you can tell me what other alternative there is and how to get there with this appalling hung parliament and with two badly-split main parties.
It's noteworthy that Donald Trump is openly canvassing the possibility of impeachment. We can therefore assume that there's more damning evidence coming shortly.
An informative and useful article, Mr. Smithson. I'll be a shade irked if Harris does get it, given my bet appears to have gone walkies from the Ladbrokes database. (I now keep a record of bet IDs).
Right, tweet Shadsy, and he'll be able to help you locate it.
Do it now.
They mislaid a winning bet and Shadsy ensured it was traced and I was paid out.
[snip] The big challenge, it was put to me by someone who knows, was to allow the no dealers the opportunity to change their minds in an "honourable" way so that they don't lose face. I'm not sure that this has happened but I expect the narrative to build whereby such an excuse can be found.
It's a very sensible approach, but it's going to be darned hard to find a plausible justification for an honourable U-turn.
Why would the no-dealers want to U-turn now when they think they're on the cusp of victory?
Well, some of them are genuine no-deal enthusiasts, for who the only argument that might work would be 'sign up else Brexit is off', but most of the Tory MPs who have dissed the deal are more likely to be less extreme sorts who simply hadn't understood quite how big the disaster of no deal would be, and who were caught up in the mob attack on the deal.
However you look at it, though, the numbers are daunting.
Referendum would solve it. I don't see any other way of settling the issue, outside of a general election - and the outcome of that would be even less certain.
Which would be fine if the eeijits who lost first time didn't want to use a referendum to overturn the previous decision.
A deal vs no deal referendum would be entirely legitimate. But the Commons will never approve it.
No it wouldn't. What exactly would be on the ballot paper for "no deal"? No deals whatsoever for anything? No agreements, temporary or otherwise, allowed to be negotiated or concluded? No acceptance of the EU's no deal measures?
It is a nonsensical instruction to a government that would be impossible to carry out.
The question should be, on 29 March the UK should
Leave the EU with this deal Leave the EU without this deal Remain in the EU
These are the three things that could happen, we’re going to have to pick one. So let the people choose.
Is the third option one that has been agreed with the EU? And if so on what terms? The ones we are in with at the moment (e.g. with rebate, non-Euro etc), or those from Cameron's negotiation, or something else?
Putting an option on a ballot paper that no-one knows what it means (and can therefore mean anything to everyone), and might not even be agreeable, is the sort of madness that got us into this mess in the first place.
The other big challenge, it was mentioned, was the endless conflation between the WA and the FA.
Yes, very much so.
When people talk about 'the deal', as often as not they are alluding to the vague and aspirational non-binding text - the Political Declaration - that is actually not part of the deal, since it allows several different destinations.
The deal is the withdrawal treaty. (i) Citizens' rights protected, (ii) Accounts settled, (iii) No border in Ireland, (iv) period of peace and tranquility to negotiate the rest.
It really isn't a circle of hell.
We just need to sign that, leave, and then try not to get too hammered in the FTA talks. No rush. Take years if we need to.
The MP opposition is not IMO particularly noble. We have Hard Brexiteers misinterpreting the 2016 referendum result as meaning only that, and Remainers misinterpreting it as meaning Remain.
[snip] The big challenge, it was put to me by someone who knows, was to allow the no dealers the opportunity to change their minds in an "honourable" way so that they don't lose face. I'm not sure that this has happened but I expect the narrative to build whereby such an excuse can be found.
It's a very sensible approach, but it's going to be darned hard to find a plausible justification for an honourable U-turn.
Why would the no-dealers want to U-turn now when they think they're on the cusp of victory?
Well, some of them are genuine no-deal enthusiasts, for who the only argument that might work would be 'sign up else Brexit is off', but most of the Tory MPs who have dissed the deal are more likely to be less extreme sorts who simply hadn't understood quite how big the disaster of no deal would be, and who were caught up in the mob attack on the deal.
However you look at it, though, the numbers are daunting.
Referendum would solve it. I don't see any other way of settling the issue, outside of a general election - and the outcome of that would be even less certain.
Which would be fine if the eeijits who lost first time didn't want to use a referendum to overturn the previous decision.
A deal vs no deal referendum would be entirely legitimate. But the Commons will never approve it.
No it wouldn't. What exactly would be on the ballot paper for "no deal"? No deals whatsoever for anything? No agreements, temporary or otherwise, allowed to be negotiated or concluded? No acceptance of the EU's no deal measures?
It is a nonsensical instruction to a government that would be impossible to carry out.
The question should be, on 29 March the UK should
Leave the EU with this deal Leave the EU without this deal Remain in the EU
These are the three things that could happen, we’re going to have to pick one. So let the people choose.
Is the third option one that has been agreed with the EU? And if so on what terms? The ones we are in with at the moment (e.g. with rebate, non-Euro etc), or those from Cameron's negotiation, or something else?
Putting an option on a ballot paper that no-one knows what it means (and can therefore mean anything to everyone), and might not even be agreeable, is the sort of madness that got us into this mess in the first place.
We know the answer to that, it’s the same terms plus the bill for Brexit. Cheapest of the three options.
Is the third option one that has been agreed with the EU? And if so on what terms? The ones we are in with at the moment (e.g. with rebate, non-Euro etc), or those from Cameron's negotiation, or something else?
Putting an option on a ballot paper that no-one knows what it means (and can therefore mean anything to everyone), and might not even be agreeable, is the sort of madness that got us into this mess in the first place.
We don't need consent from the EU to revoke Article 50, provided we haven't actually left - that was the ECJ ruling.
[snip] The big challenge, it was put to me by someone who knows, was to allow the no dealers the opportunity to change their minds in an "honourable" way so that they don't lose face. I'm not sure that this has happened but I expect the narrative to build whereby such an excuse can be found.
It's a very sensible approach, but it's going to be darned hard to find a plausible justification for an honourable U-turn.
Why would the no-dealers want to U-turn now when they think they're on the cusp of victory?
Well, some of them are genuine no-deal enthusiasts, for who the only argument that might work would be 'sign up else Brexit is off', but most of the Tory MPs who have dissed the deal are more likely to be less extreme sorts who simply hadn't understood quite how big the disaster of no deal would be, and who were caught up in the mob attack on the deal.
However you look at it, though, the numbers are daunting.
Referendum would solve it. I don't see any other way of settling the issue, outside of a general election - and the outcome of that would be even less certain.
Which would be fine if the eeijits who lost first time didn't want to use a referendum to overturn the previous decision.
A deal vs no deal referendum would be entirely legitimate. But the Commons will never approve it.
No it wouldn't. What exactly would be on the ballot paper for "no deal"? No deals whatsoever for anything? No agreements, temporary or otherwise, allowed to be negotiated or concluded? No acceptance of the EU's no deal measures?
It is a nonsensical instruction to a government that would be impossible to carry out.
Under such circumstances the question on the ballot paper would simply be whether or not to approve the withdrawal agreement. The negative condition does not need to be defined, as it is simply what happens by default if the agreement is not approved.
Of course, this is all purely hypothetical anyway as no such referendum can occur.
And that would throw up a very similar deal in short order with the government assuring us that it was substantially different although it wouldn't be and we would be back where we started.
[snip] The big challenge, it was put to me by someone who knows, was to allow the no dealers the opportunity to change their minds in an "honourable" way so that they don't lose face. I'm not sure that this has happened but I expect the narrative to build whereby such an excuse can be found.
It's a very sensible approach, but it's going to be darned hard to find a plausible justification for an honourable U-turn.
Why would the no-dealers want to U-turn now when they think they're on the cusp of victory?
Well, some of them are genuine no-deal enthusiasts, for who the only argument that might work would be 'sign up else Brexit is off', but most of the Tory MPs who have dissed the deal are more likely to be less extreme sorts who simply hadn't understood quite how big the disaster of no deal would be, and who were caught up in the mob attack on the deal.
However you look at it, though, the numbers are daunting.
Referendum would solve it. I don't see any other way of settling the issue, outside of a general election - and the outcome of that would be even less certain.
Which would be fine if the eeijits who lost first time didn't want to use a referendum to overturn the previous decision.
A deal vs no deal referendum would be entirely legitimate. But the Commons will never approve it.
No it wouldn't. What exactly would be on the ballot paper for "no deal"? No deals whatsoever for anything? No agreements, temporary or otherwise, allowed to be negotiated or concluded? No acceptance of the EU's no deal measures?
It is a nonsensical instruction to a government that would be impossible to carry out.
Under such circumstances the question on the ballot paper would simply be whether or not to approve the withdrawal agreement. The negative condition does not need to be defined, as it is simply what happens by default if the agreement is not approved.
Of course, this is all purely hypothetical anyway as no such referendum can occur.
And that would throw up a very similar deal in short order with the government assuring us that it was substantially different although it wouldn't be and we would be back where we started.
[snip] The big challenge, it was put to me by someone who knows, was to allow the no dealers the opportunity to change their minds in an "honourable" way so that they don't lose face. I'm not sure that this has happened but I expect the narrative to build whereby such an excuse can be found.
It's a very sensible approach, but it's going to be darned hard to find a plausible justification for an honourable U-turn.
Why would the no-dealers want to U-turn now when they think they're on the cusp of victory?
Well, some of them are genuine no-deal enthusiasts, for who the only argument that might work would be 'sign up else Brexit is off', but most of the Tory MPs who have dissed the deal are more likely to be less extreme sorts who simply hadn't understood quite how big the disaster of no deal would be, and who were caught up in the mob attack on the deal.
However you look at it, though, the numbers are daunting.
Referendum would solve it. I don't see any other way of settling the issue, outside of a general election - and the outcome of that would be even less certain.
Which would be fine if the eeijits who lost first time didn't want to use a referendum to overturn the previous decision.
A deal vs no deal referendum would be entirely legitimate. But the Commons will never approve it.
No it wouldn't. What exactly would be on the ballot paper for "no deal"? No deals whatsoever for anything? No agreements, temporary or otherwise, allowed to be negotiated or concluded? No acceptance of the EU's no deal measures?
It is a nonsensical instruction to a government that would be impossible to carry out.
The government are right now making preparations to carry it out. Nonsense or not.
I'm reminded of the Crocodile Dundee knife scene. Those are not No Deal preparations. A teensy little dredger in Ramsgate.
[snip] The big challenge, it was put to me by someone who knows, was to allow the no dealers the opportunity to change their minds in an "honourable" way so that they don't lose face. I'm not sure that this has happened but I expect the narrative to build whereby such an excuse can be found.
It's a very sensible approach, but it's going to be darned hard to find a plausible justification for an honourable U-turn.
Why would the no-dealers want to U-turn now when they think they're on the cusp of victory?
Well, some of them are genuine no-deal enthusiasts, for who the only argument that might work would be 'sign up else Brexit is off', but most of the Tory MPs who have dissed the deal are more likely to be less extreme sorts who simply hadn't understood quite how big the disaster of no deal would be, and who were caught up in the mob attack on the deal.
However you look at it, though, the numbers are daunting.
Referendum would solve it. I don't see any other way of settling the issue, outside of a general election - and the outcome of that would be even less certain.
Which would be fine if the eeijits who lost first time didn't want to use a referendum to overturn the previous decision.
A deal vs no deal referendum would be entirely legitimate. But the Commons will never approve it.
No it wouldn't. What exactly would be on the ballot paper for "no deal"? No deals whatsoever for anything? No agreements, temporary or otherwise, allowed to be negotiated or concluded? No acceptance of the EU's no deal measures?
It is a nonsensical instruction to a government that would be impossible to carry out.
The wording would be easy. If and when Parliament voted down the WA, and if it then voted through the legislation for a second referendum, the question on the ballot would read:
"Do you wish to remain in the European Union?" Yes/No.
The Deal for all its ills is leaving the EU so they would simply come back with The Deal II.
The fact remains Iowa and New Hampshire still vote first before other states and Sanders won New Hampshire in 2016 and lost Iowa by less than 1%. If he wins both he will almost certainly be nominee as all the momentum will be his, no candidate in post war history has won Iowa and New Hampshire and failed to be nominee.
As for Harris she is yet another California coastal liberal who would lose the rustbelt and the Electoral College, little better than Warren. O'Rourke really needed to have beaten Cruz not lost to have a chance
By spring of 2020, the US Democrats might be looking at the UK rejecting Corbyn twice - and think to themselves "Old Lefties? Nah......."
The fact remains Iowa and New Hampshire still vote first before other states and Sanders won New Hampshire in 2016 and lost Iowa by less than 1%. If he wins both he will almost certainly be nominee as all the momentum will be his, no candidate in post war history has won Iowa and New Hampshire and failed to be nominee.
As for Harris she is yet another California coastal liberal who would lose the rustbelt and the Electoral College, little better than Warren. O'Rourke really needed to have beaten Cruz not lost to have a chance
By spring of 2020, the US Democrats might be looking at the UK rejecting Corbyn twice - and think to themselves "Old Lefties? Nah......."
Or, even more to the point, looking at the UK failing to reject Corbyn the second time, and thinking 'Yikes! We sure as hell don't wanna go there.'
Leave the EU with this deal Leave the EU without this deal Remain in the EU
These are the three things that could happen, we’re going to have to pick one. So let the people choose.
Ok.
Leave with the deal 20% Leave without the deal 35% Remain in the EU 45%
The people have spoken.
What have they said?
After second prefs
Leave without a deal 55% Remain in the EU 45%
We have consent for leaving without a deal.
Remember, this will be messy whatever happens next. We can’t stop that, what we’re looking for is the least bad option and that means getting as many people on board.
The deal has the support of very few and carries a calculated risk. It can only be forced through Parliament. It seeks to limit economic harm by taking in a democratic deficit. No deal with consent or remain with consent is better than something being forced through.
The fact remains Iowa and New Hampshire still vote first before other states and Sanders won New Hampshire in 2016 and lost Iowa by less than 1%. If he wins both he will almost certainly be nominee as all the momentum will be his, no candidate in post war history has won Iowa and New Hampshire and failed to be nominee.
As for Harris she is yet another California coastal liberal who would lose the rustbelt and the Electoral College, little better than Warren. O'Rourke really needed to have beaten Cruz not lost to have a chance
By spring of 2020, the US Democrats might be looking at the UK rejecting Corbyn twice - and think to themselves "Old Lefties? Nah......."
Or, even more to the point, looking at the UK failing to reject Corbyn the second time, and thinking 'Yikes! We sure as hell don't wanna go there.'
I would imagine Venezuela is not as much of a dreamy role model for those on the same side of the Atlantic....
[snip] The big challenge, it was put to me by someone who knows, was to allow the no dealers the opportunity to change their minds in an "honourable" way so that they don't lose face. I'm not sure that this has happened but I expect the narrative to build whereby such an excuse can be found.
It's a very sensible approach, but it's going to be darned hard to find a plausible justification for an honourable U-turn.
Why would the no-dealers want to U-turn now when they think they're on the cusp of victory?
Well, some of them are genuine no-deal enthusiasts, for who the only argument that might work would be 'sign up else Brexit is off', but most of the Tory MPs who have dissed the deal are more likely to be less extreme sorts who simply hadn't understood quite how big the disaster of no deal would be, and who were caught up in the mob attack on the deal.
However you look at it, though, the numbers are daunting.
Referendum would solve it. I don't see any other way of settling the issue, outside of a general election - and the outcome of that would be even less certain.
Which would be fine if the eeijits who lost first time didn't want to use a referendum to overturn the previous decision.
A deal vs no deal referendum would be entirely legitimate. But the Commons will never approve it.
No it wouldn't. What exactly would be on the ballot paper for "no deal"? No deals whatsoever for anything? No agreements, temporary or otherwise, allowed to be negotiated or concluded? No acceptance of the EU's no deal measures?
It is a nonsensical instruction to a government that would be impossible to carry out.
The government are right now making preparations to carry it out. Nonsense or not.
Topping's point is that "No Deal" isn't a very precise instruction. I assume most people advocating it would still want us to try and get *A* Deal on planes flying, medicines being transported, police co-operation etc. So you can't ask voters for what many would see as a fairly specific instruction not to conclude one.
I guess it's not insurmountable...
Leave under the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement Leave without signing the Withdrawal Agreement
(Not that more than about 3 per cent of respondents would have an accurate assessment of what either of them meant. But hell, that boat sailed c31 months ago)
Leave the EU with this deal Leave the EU without this deal Remain in the EU
These are the three things that could happen, we’re going to have to pick one. So let the people choose.
Ok.
Leave with the deal 20% Leave without the deal 35% Remain in the EU 45%
The people have spoken.
What have they said?
After second prefs
Leave without a deal 55% Remain in the EU 45%
We have consent for leaving without a deal.
Remember, this will be messy whatever happens next. We can’t stop that, what we’re looking for is the least bad option and that means getting as many people on board.
The deal has the support of very few and carries a calculated risk. It can only be forced through. No deal with consent or remain with consent is better than something being forced through.
All entirely irrelevant since, even if a Parliamentary majority can somehow be assembled for a second referendum *AND* a friendly Prime Minister put in place to get the legislation through, there's not enough time left before March 29th to hold one. Therefore...
1. There has to be unanimous agreement by all of the EU27 to an extension of the A50 process, which may not be forthcoming, and 2. Even if it is, they're not going to grant the extra time for a complex and messy three-way vote which includes No Deal as an option
A second referendum is a very bad idea. At root, it's just a cop-out by a large cohort of pro-EU politicians who want desperately to stay in, but are too riven by faction and/or too frightened simply to vote to do so under their own authority.
Leave the EU with this deal Leave the EU without this deal Remain in the EU
These are the three things that could happen, we’re going to have to pick one. So let the people choose.
Ok.
Leave with the deal 20% Leave without the deal 35% Remain in the EU 45%
The people have spoken.
What have they said?
After second prefs
Leave without a deal 55% Remain in the EU 45%
We have consent for leaving without a deal.
Remember, this will be messy whatever happens next. We can’t stop that, what we’re looking for is the least bad option and that means getting as many people on board.
The deal has the support of very few and carries a calculated risk. It can only be forced through Parliament. No deal with consent or remain with consent is better than something being forced through.
The government won't put "no deal" in front of the public. Not sure how many times that needs to be said or in what particular way.
All the contortions of how to phrase it either lead back to the deal or to remain.
[snip] The big challenge, it was put to me by someone who knows, was to allow the no dealers the opportunity to change their minds in an "honourable" way so that they don't lose face. I'm not sure that this has happened but I expect the narrative to build whereby such an excuse can be found.
It's a very sensible approach, but it's going to be darned hard to find a plausible justification for an honourable U-turn.
Why would the no-dealers want to U-turn now when they think they're on the cusp of victory?
Well, some of them are genuine no-deal enthusiasts, for who the only argument that might work would be 'sign up else Brexit is off', but most of the Tory MPs who have dissed the deal are more likely to be less extreme sorts who simply hadn't understood quite how big the disaster of no deal would be, and who were caught up in the mob attack on the deal.
However you look at it, though, the numbers are daunting.
Referendum would solve it. I don't see any other way of settling the issue, outside of a general election - and the outcome of that would be even less certain.
Which would be fine if the eeijits who lost first time didn't want to use a referendum to overturn the previous decision.
A deal vs no deal referendum would be entirely legitimate. But the Commons will never approve it.
No it wouldn't. What exactly would be on the ballot paper for "no deal"? No deals whatsoever for anything? No agreements, temporary or otherwise, allowed to be negotiated or concluded? No acceptance of the EU's no deal measures?
It is a nonsensical instruction to a government that would be impossible to carry out.
Leave having signed the withdrawal agreement
Leave without signing the withdrawal agreement
Mitigation policies are details that can be left up to the government.
Frankly the preferably option is that Parliament should stop fucking around and make up the decision to accept the deal or leave without a deal and stop looking for a way out. When they voted for Article 50 they created this situation.
[snip] The big challenge, it was put to me by someone who knows, was to allow the no dealers the opportunity to change their minds in an "honourable" way so that they don't lose face. I'm not sure that this has happened but I expect the narrative to build whereby such an excuse can be found.
It's a very sensible approach, but it's going to be darned hard to find a plausible justification for an honourable U-turn.
Why would the no-dealers want to U-turn now when they think they're on the cusp of victory?
Well, some of them are genuine no-deal enthusiasts, for who the only argument that might work would be 'sign up else Brexit is off', but most of the Tory MPs who have dissed the deal are more likely to be less extreme sorts who simply hadn't understood quite how big the disaster of no deal would be, and who were caught up in the mob attack on the deal.
However you look at it, though, the numbers are daunting.
Referendum would solve it. I don't see any other way of settling the issue, outside of a general election - and the outcome of that would be even less certain.
Which would be fine if the eeijits who lost first time didn't want to use a referendum to overturn the previous decision.
A deal vs no deal referendum would be entirely legitimate. But the Commons will never approve it.
No it wouldn't. What exactly would be on the ballot paper for "no deal"? No deals whatsoever for anything? No agreements, temporary or otherwise, allowed to be negotiated or concluded? No acceptance of the EU's no deal measures?
It is a nonsensical instruction to a government that would be impossible to carry out.
The government are right now making preparations to carry it out. Nonsense or not.
Topping's point is that "No Deal" isn't a very precise instruction. I assume most people advocating it would still want us to try and get *A* Deal on planes flying, medicines being transported, police co-operation etc. So you can't ask voters for what many would see as a fairly specific instruction not to conclude one.
I guess it's not insurmountable...
Leave under the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement Leave without signing the Withdrawal Agreement
(Not that more than about 3 per cent of respondents would have an accurate assessment of what either of them meant. But hell, that boat sailed c31 months ago)
LOL exactly.
And leaving without signing the Withdrawal Agreement will be solved by leaving with a Withdrawal Agreement.
Leave the EU with this deal Leave the EU without this deal Remain in the EU
These are the three things that could happen, we’re going to have to pick one. So let the people choose.
Ok.
Leave with the deal 20% Leave without the deal 35% Remain in the EU 45%
The people have spoken.
What have they said?
After second prefs
Leave without a deal 55% Remain in the EU 45%
We have consent for leaving without a deal.
Remember, this will be messy whatever happens next. We can’t stop that, what we’re looking for is the least bad option and that means getting as many people on board.
The deal has the support of very few and carries a calculated risk. It can only be forced through. No deal with consent or remain with consent is better than something being forced through.
All entirely irrelevant since, even if a Parliamentary majority can somehow be assembled for a second referendum *AND* a friendly Prime Minister put in place to get the legislation through, there's not enough time left before March 29th to hold one. Therefore...
1. There has to be unanimous agreement by all of the EU27 to an extension of the A50 process, which may not be forthcoming, and 2. Even if it is, they're not going to grant the extra time for a complex and messy three-way vote which includes No Deal as an option
A second referendum is a very bad idea. At root, it's just a cop-out by a large cohort of pro-EU politicians who want desperately to stay in, but are too riven by faction and/or too frightened simply to vote to do so under their own authority.
A second referendum is a hugely bad idea but it might be the only available option if the deal is rejected. Which I put at a 15% chance.
The YouGov figures for the Tory membership look about right to be. I'm in the 24% who are on record as backing the deal but it's a very reluctant backing.
My only observation is that the more it looks like we are moving to no deal the more likely a deal will eventually get through.
Combination of concessions from EU, Labour MPs peeling off as they realise No Deal is odds on to actually happen and some Tory tribal loyalty (still some residue left) kicking in at the last moment.
Our Irish friends are looking increasingly pale about the gills as they stare down the barrel. Leo not looking too confident now.
Leave the EU with this deal Leave the EU without this deal Remain in the EU
These are the three things that could happen, we’re going to have to pick one. So let the people choose.
Ok.
Leave with the deal 20% Leave without the deal 35% Remain in the EU 45%
The people have spoken.
What have they said?
After second prefs
Leave without a deal 55% Remain in the EU 45%
We have consent for leaving without a deal.
Remember, this will be messy whatever happens next. We can’t stop that, what we’re looking for is the least bad option and that means getting as many people on board.
The deal has the support of very few and carries a calculated risk. It can only be forced through. No deal with consent or remain with consent is better than something being forced through.
All entirely irrelevant since, even if a Parliamentary majority can somehow be assembled for a second referendum *AND* a friendly Prime Minister put in place to get the legislation through, there's not enough time left before March 29th to hold one. Therefore...
1. There has to be unanimous agreement by all of the EU27 to an extension of the A50 process, which may not be forthcoming, and 2. Even if it is, they're not going to grant the extra time for a complex and messy three-way vote which includes No Deal as an option
A second referendum is a very bad idea. At root, it's just a cop-out by a large cohort of pro-EU politicians who want desperately to stay in, but are too riven by faction and/or too frightened simply to vote to do so under their own authority.
If there is no time that is down to May pushing the dead deal. I doubt it’s true. Parliament goes fast when it has to.
If it is true we have to attempt to extend to find another backstop. My preference would be to include a reentry option, rather than her bespoke deal.
If that is not possible it will be down to a Parliamentary vote to revoke A50 or no deal. In which case god help us.
And leaving without signing the Withdrawal Agreement will be solved by leaving with a Withdrawal Agreement.
...which, when it includes some minor-bit of ruletaking in return for not killing diabetics (or whatever) will lead to accusations containing the phrases "will of the people", "saboteurs", "metropolitan elites" etc. And the cycle repeats.
We seem to have worked round to the answer: There Is No Alternative to the deal.
QED.
Now we just need MPs to be able to get there too. That might be too much of an ask, though.
Only in your mind , to anyone normal there are a few other options, ie cancel the whole shambles or just grow a pair and get out. Both are better than the Tory dog's breakfast.
Been going on about this for a while. All that pretentious rubbish about corn futures in Iowa and constitutional principles in New Hampshire may finally be brought to an end and we may get the views of States that actually represent a more significant tranche of the United States. This is surely a good thing.
It also means that the cheap and cheerful starting point of small town meetings and cheap adverts in low cost areas disappear. Serious candidates will now need real money before the starting gun is fired to have advertising in the most expensive markets in the US, they will need large scale organisations in places like California and they will need a large number of boots on the ground at an early stage managed from offices. This is not such a good thing making it far more difficult for break through candidates.
To me, this gives an enormous advantage to someone like Kamala Harris who already has such an organisation which has elected her senator of California. Admittedly getting elected as a democratic senator in Cal is not that hard but she must also have fought off internal candidates at some point. I don't see how some governor of some minor state or newbie congressman ever gets competitive with her. She still looks a steal to me for the nomination.
Remember this from January 2017 while Obama was still President?
[snip] The big challenge, it was put to me by someone who knows, was to allow the no dealers the opportunity to change their minds in an "honourable" way so that they don't lose face. I'm not sure that this has happened but I expect the narrative to build whereby such an excuse can be found.
It's a very sensible approach, but it's going to be darned hard to find a plausible justification for an honourable U-turn.
Why would the no-dealers want to U-turn now when they think they're on the cusp of victory?
Wood quite how big the disaster of no deal would be, and who were caught up in the mob attack on the deal.
However you look at it, though, the numbers are daunting.
Referendum would solve it. I don't see any other way of settling the issue, outside of a general election - and the outcome of that would be even less certain.
Which would be fine if the eeijits who lost first time didn't want to use a referendum to overturn the previous decision.
A deal vs no deal referendum would be entirely legitimate. But the Commons will never approve it.
No it wouldn't. What exactly would be on the ballot paper for "no deal"? No deals whatsoever for anything? No agreements, temporary or otherwise, allowed to be negotiated or concluded? No acceptance of the EU's no deal measures?
It is a nonsensical instruction to a government that would be impossible to carry out.
Leave having signed the withdrawal agreement
Leave without signing the withdrawal agreement
Mitigation policies are details that can be left up to the government.
Frankly the preferably option is that Parliament should stop fucking around and make up the decision to accept the deal or leave without a deal and stop looking for a way out. When they voted for Article 50 they created this situation.
The point is, there will be a deal. There has to be if only for the bare essentials. Hence all those points which need to be included in the deal will have to be included in a document of sorts and then, following discussions, again, if only on the EU's own no deal measures, that document will be used to form some kind of, er, deal.
So either way we will have a deal.
Now, people might not like the new deal but then when what they say they prefer (no deal) is actually impossible, they will have to lump it.
Leave the EU with this deal Leave the EU without this deal Remain in the EU
These are the three things that could happen, we’re going to have to pick one. So let the people choose.
Ok.
Leave with the deal 20% Leave without the deal 35% Remain in the EU 45%
The people have spoken.
What have they said?
After second prefs
Leave without a deal 55% Remain in the EU 45%
We have consent for leaving without a deal.
Remember, this will be messy whatever happens next. We can’t stop that, what we’re looking for is the least bad option and that means getting as many people on board.
The deal has the support of very few and carries a calculated risk. It can only be forced through. No deal with consent or remain with consent is better than something being forced through.
All entirely irrelevant since, even if a Parliamentary majority can somehow be assembled for a second referendum *AND* a friendly Prime Minister put in place to get the legislation through, there's not enough time left before March 29th to hold one. Therefore...
1. There has to be unanimous agreement by all of the EU27 to an extension of the A50 process, which may not be forthcoming, and 2. Even if it is, they're not going to grant the extra time for a complex and messy three-way vote which includes No Deal as an option
A second referendum is a very bad idea. At root, it's just a cop-out by a large cohort of pro-EU politicians who want desperately to stay in, but are too riven by faction and/or too frightened simply to vote to do so under their own authority.
If there is no time that is down to May pushing the dead deal. I doubt it’s true. Parliament goes fast when it has to.
If it is true we have to attempt to extend to find another backstop. My preference would be to include a reentry option, rather than her bespoke deal.
If that is not possible it will be down to a Parliamentary vote to revoke A50 or no deal. In which case god help us.
Is the third option one that has been agreed with the EU? And if so on what terms? The ones we are in with at the moment (e.g. with rebate, non-Euro etc), or those from Cameron's negotiation, or something else?
Putting an option on a ballot paper that no-one knows what it means (and can therefore mean anything to everyone), and might not even be agreeable, is the sort of madness that got us into this mess in the first place.
We know the answer to that, it’s the same terms plus the bill for Brexit. Cheapest of the three options.
Do you have a source for that? And when you say 'same terms', the same as what?
The YouGov figures for the Tory membership look about right to be. I'm in the 24% who are on record as backing the deal but it's a very reluctant backing.
My only observation is that the more it looks like we are moving to no deal the more likely a deal will eventually get through.
Combination of concessions from EU, Labour MPs peeling off as they realise No Deal is odds on to actually happen and some Tory tribal loyalty (still some residue left) kicking in at the last moment.
Our Irish friends are looking increasingly pale about the gills as they stare down the barrel. Leo not looking too confident now.
The only thing May's Shit Deal has going for it is this: it's better than not Brexiting at all.
Despite all the OTT stuff and lots of smears / lies doing the rounds on social media, it appears that people behind this ferry company, you know have done rather a lot of sea transportation lark in the past.
The YouGov figures for the Tory membership look about right to be. I'm in the 24% who are on record as backing the deal but it's a very reluctant backing.
My only observation is that the more it looks like we are moving to no deal the more likely a deal will eventually get through.
Combination of concessions from EU, Labour MPs peeling off as they realise No Deal is odds on to actually happen and some Tory tribal loyalty (still some residue left) kicking in at the last moment.
Our Irish friends are looking increasingly pale about the gills as they stare down the barrel. Leo not looking too confident now.
The only thing May's Shit Deal has going for it is this: it's better than not Brexiting at all.
Is the third option one that has been agreed with the EU? And if so on what terms? The ones we are in with at the moment (e.g. with rebate, non-Euro etc), or those from Cameron's negotiation, or something else?
Putting an option on a ballot paper that no-one knows what it means (and can therefore mean anything to everyone), and might not even be agreeable, is the sort of madness that got us into this mess in the first place.
We don't need consent from the EU to revoke Article 50, provided we haven't actually left - that was the ECJ ruling.
And once we have left we don't need to revoke Article 50 either.
Despite all the OTT stuff and lots of smears / lies doing the rounds on social media, it appears that people behind this ferry company, you know have done rather a lot of sea transportation lark in the past.
Surely, it's good advice to wear a helmet when cycling. if you fall and strike your head off the surface, you run the risk of far more harm without a helmet.
[snip] The big challenge, it was put to me by someone who knows, was to allow the no dealers the opportunity to change their minds in an "honourable" way so that they don't lose face. I'm not sure that this has happened but I expect the narrative to build whereby such an excuse can be found.
It's a very sensible approach, but it's going to be darned hard to find a plausible justification for an honourable U-turn.
Why would the no-dealers want to U-turn now when they think they're on the cusp of victory?
Wood quite how big the disaster of no deal would be, and who were caught up in the mob attack on the deal.
However you look at it, though, the numbers are daunting.
Referendum would solve it. I don't see any other way of settling the issue, outside of a general election - and the outcome of that would be even less certain.
Which would be fine if the eeijits who lost first time didn't want to use a referendum to overturn the previous decision.
A deal vs no deal referendum would be entirely legitimate. But the Commons will never approve it.
No it wouldn't. What exactly would be on the ballot paper for "no deal"? No deals whatsoever for anything? No agreements, temporary or otherwise, allowed to be negotiated or concluded? No acceptance of the EU's no deal measures?
It is a nonsensical instruction to a government that would be impossible to carry out.
Leave having signed the withdrawal agreement
Leave without signing the withdrawal agreement
Mitigation policies are details that can be left up to the government.
Frankly the preferably option is that Parliament should stop fucking around and make up the decision to accept the deal or leave without a deal and stop looking for a way out. When they voted for Article 50 they created this situation.
The point is, there will be a deal. There has to be if only for the bare essentials. Hence all those points which need to be included in the deal will have to be included in a document of sorts and then, following discussions, again, if only on the EU's own no deal measures, that document will be used to form some kind of, er, deal.
So either way we will have a deal.
Now, people might not like the new deal but then when what they say they prefer (no deal) is actually impossible, they will have to lump it.
I was driving through Westminster yesterday at dusk and it was very dangerous - the number of cyclists with dark clothing and no desire to stick to the rules (red lights, pedestrians, etc).
When you combine that with traffic and risk-taking pedestrians on their phones it's very difficult and dangerous driving. Of course I'm going to try not to hit anyone, but a bit of a contribution on their side would be appreciated!
And leaving without signing the Withdrawal Agreement will be solved by leaving with a Withdrawal Agreement.
...which, when it includes some minor-bit of ruletaking in return for not killing diabetics (or whatever) will lead to accusations containing the phrases "will of the people", "saboteurs", "metropolitan elites" etc. And the cycle repeats.
Yes. It's exquisite. If only on the diabetics (or as you say, whatever) front there has to be some deal. Some agreement to do X or Y or perhaps X, Y and Z.
And that is a deal. And not having such a deal is what some people are proposing we should consult the British People about or indeed choose ourselves.
I mean you don't have to be Freddie Ayer to grasp the inherent absurdity.
Is the third option one that has been agreed with the EU? And if so on what terms? The ones we are in with at the moment (e.g. with rebate, non-Euro etc), or those from Cameron's negotiation, or something else?
Putting an option on a ballot paper that no-one knows what it means (and can therefore mean anything to everyone), and might not even be agreeable, is the sort of madness that got us into this mess in the first place.
We don't need consent from the EU to revoke Article 50, provided we haven't actually left - that was the ECJ ruling.
Surely, it's good advice to wear a helmet when cycling. if you fall and strike your head off the surface, you run the risk of far more harm without a helmet.
They give the impression that cyclists are so fucking dense, the pavement will always come off worse than their depeleted uranium skulls....
Doubly stupid as actually I don't wear a helmet in case of traffic collision but in case I fall off and bang my head. If I'm hit by a 30 tonne lorry I realise a helmet is not going to be important either way. If I get blown over and land on a kerb, it suddenly becomes very relevant.
As for the comments about reflective clothing, they're beyond ridiculous. By that argument motorists with good night vision shouldn't need to use lights at night and when they get hit, it's the other person's fault.
Comments
It also means that the cheap and cheerful starting point of small town meetings and cheap adverts in low cost areas disappear. Serious candidates will now need real money before the starting gun is fired to have advertising in the most expensive markets in the US, they will need large scale organisations in places like California and they will need a large number of boots on the ground at an early stage managed from offices. This is not such a good thing making it far more difficult for break through candidates.
To me, this gives an enormous advantage to someone like Kamala Harris who already has such an organisation which has elected her senator of California. Admittedly getting elected as a democratic senator in Cal is not that hard but she must also have fought off internal candidates at some point. I don't see how some governor of some minor state or newbie congressman ever gets competitive with her. She still looks a steal to me for the nomination.
https://twitter.com/RhonddaBryant/status/1081188726997434368
Anyone have their well-thumbed Erskine May to hand?
Biden is a very different guy than his 1970s incarnation (which is the source of his strongest negatives) - and the reason he's so popular in the party is that he made rather a good job of the thankless task of being Vice President.
I'm not 100% convinced he'll run, but he is one of the favourites for a reason.
'We've got to respect the will of the people, even if it's wrong.'
A real democrat respects the will of the people, especially when it's rabid, pig-ignorant and stultifyingly ill-informed.
The other big challenge, it was mentioned, was the endless conflation between the WA and the FA.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/01/18/my-661-long-shot-bet-for-the-2020-white-house-race-demcratic-senator-kamala-harris-from-california/
May has precisely one chance to lose the meaningful vote, a chance she is seizing with a commendable aplomb.
Might have been more helpful if you'd said absolute steal.
However you look at it, though, the numbers are daunting.
Even if Cabinet were united in telling the Brexiteers that No Deal would be a disaster it wouldn't make any difference. Now in addition you've got Hunt and THE SAJ and whoever else whispering sweet no-deal nothings in their ears.
I don't see any other way of settling the issue, outside of a general election - and the outcome of that would be even less certain.
https://twitter.com/CStalfordMLA/status/1081153964056428545
(oh dear)
A deal vs no deal referendum would be entirely legitimate. But the Commons will never approve it.
(And as we've discussed before, it doesn't have to be deal vs no deal in order to respect the first referendum vote.)
An election might well not help at all, but simply leave another stalemate. And what Brexit platforms would the two main parties run on? Neither is united around any coherent approach.
justin124 said:
» show previous quotes
Disagree. I would always vote Tory rather than SNP - or Plaid.
You surprise me!
Richard_Nabavi said:
» show previous quotes
It's not her counting down the clock, though. She's all keen to get the deal agreed and to move on to the next stage. It's her opponents who are preventing that.
But, yes you are right, all options are impossible, which means that we are at very substantial risk of falling accidentally into the unquestionably worst of all the bad routes we could have taken.
It is only her pig headedness that is causing the problem, time she was gone. Running down the clock is despicable and deserves her getting "No Deal" and eternal vilification.
IanB2 said:
» show previous quotes
Cut him some slack; you may have missed his sharing that one side of his brain runs slow.
Ian, I chastised you on this previously, I never said such a thing. I said one side ran slower than the other but as that other side was above supersonic/light speed the other one even if slower is still very very fast. Take 10 lines, in your best writing do "I must not tell porkies again about Malkie's brain speed".
Richard_Nabavi said:
» show previous quotes
It's rather naive to think that the deal doesn't command a majority because it has fundamental flaws. It doesn't command a majority because various different groups of MPs have contradictory agendas, and because Labour are opposing it for the sake of opposing it.
It is bollox , no one could make a silk purse out of that sows ear of a deal. A pox on your propaganda.
Theuniondivvie said:
» show previous quotes
What about British nationalism?
An oft heard cry from Labour Unionists during the indy ref was that Scottish independence would make family foreigners (Tony Benn & Margaret Curran spring to mind as producers of that sort of guff). Why is being a foreigner so bad, and why should a Glasgow scaffolder feel more internationalist solidarity with one from Gloucester than he would with ones from Galway or Göttingen?
TUD , they need the last remnant of the Empire to make them feel good.
Gallowgate said:
» show previous quotes
Because the common man in Berwickshire and the common man in Northumberland are culturally and linguistically one and the same.
Hmmmm, you listening to Land of Hope and Glory as you post that. Utter bollox.
So the only legitimate vote is deal vs no deal.
Anything that includes remain as an option is just an attempt to overturn the result.
It might have been different if Adonis and his ilk hadn't spent the last 2 years creating a situation where the perception was that the "establishment" didn't want to decision to leave to be implemented
It is a nonsensical instruction to a government that would be impossible to carry out.
If Parliament won't back the Deal then it should either resign itself to Hard Brexit, or revoke A50 and then submit to a General Election afterwards. MPs are elected and paid to take difficult decisions: there's no merit in throwing the issue back at the voters again (who might, BTW, be forgiven for asking if there was any point in voting on the same thing for a second time, when this had obviously only been asked of them because the politicians didn't want to hear what they had said the first time around.)
Leave the EU with this deal
Leave the EU without this deal
Remain in the EU
These are the three things that could happen, we’re going to have to pick one. So let the people choose.
An informative and useful article, Mr. Smithson. I'll be a shade irked if Harris does get it, given my bet appears to have gone walkies from the Ladbrokes database. (I now keep a record of bet IDs).
The couple of alternatives for a two part vote (which we've discussed before) would seem to have the best chance of gaining consent, and as a matter of practicality include the three possible outcomes actually on offer from the EU (ie May's Deal, No Deal, and Revoke A50).
What is clear is that the longer May draws out the process, the more determined the opposition to her deal becomes. It is the only practical way she can change the narrative.
QED.
Now we just need MPs to be able to get there too. That might be too much of an ask, though.
We should remember that California and Texas are, in the Democrat race, both proportional primaries. This could actually work *against* O'Rouke and Harris as there'll be more candidates in the race when the states vote, and they could well wind up with fewer delegates than they otherwise would were the vote later on and still undecided. (For the Republicans, TX and CA are winner take most/all).
That said, I agree with those who said that the clustering of ever more votes, ever earlier in the cycle simply increases the importance of appearing a front-runner coming out of Iowa / New Hampshire.
Two other things will matter. Firstly, as ever, fundraising (though fat lot of use that did Jeb Bush), and secondly, the ability to look distinctive and attractive to a target audience in 10-second soundbites in 7+ way debates. I'm sure that's one reason that both Trump and Sanders did so well in 2016: simple solutions and soundbites stand out in a way that complex arguments don't.
Of course, this is all purely hypothetical anyway as no such referendum can occur.
"Do you wish to remain in the European Union?" Yes/No.
If the deal doesn't pass (I still think it will) the only pragmatic (although wholly undesirable) option would be a deal/remain referendum.
Do it now.
They mislaid a winning bet and Shadsy ensured it was traced and I was paid out.
Putting an option on a ballot paper that no-one knows what it means (and can therefore mean anything to everyone), and might not even be agreeable, is the sort of madness that got us into this mess in the first place.
When people talk about 'the deal', as often as not they are alluding to the vague and aspirational non-binding text - the Political Declaration - that is actually not part of the deal, since it allows several different destinations.
The deal is the withdrawal treaty. (i) Citizens' rights protected, (ii) Accounts settled, (iii) No border in Ireland, (iv) period of peace and tranquility to negotiate the rest.
It really isn't a circle of hell.
We just need to sign that, leave, and then try not to get too hammered in the FTA talks. No rush. Take years if we need to.
The MP opposition is not IMO particularly noble. We have Hard Brexiteers misinterpreting the 2016 referendum result as meaning only that, and Remainers misinterpreting it as meaning Remain.
C'mon MPs, shape up.
Leave with the deal 20%
Leave without the deal 35%
Remain in the EU 45%
The people have spoken.
What have they said?
Leave without a deal 55%
Remain in the EU 45%
We have consent for leaving without a deal.
Remember, this will be messy whatever happens next. We can’t stop that, what we’re looking for is the least bad option and that means getting as many people on board.
The deal has the support of very few and carries a calculated risk. It can only be forced through Parliament. It seeks to limit economic harm by taking in a democratic deficit. No deal with consent or remain with consent is better than something being forced through.
Edited extra bit: that's the Ladpolitics Twitter account, right?
I guess it's not insurmountable...
Leave under the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement
Leave without signing the Withdrawal Agreement
(Not that more than about 3 per cent of respondents would have an accurate assessment of what either of them meant. But hell, that boat sailed c31 months ago)
1. There has to be unanimous agreement by all of the EU27 to an extension of the A50 process, which may not be forthcoming, and
2. Even if it is, they're not going to grant the extra time for a complex and messy three-way vote which includes No Deal as an option
A second referendum is a very bad idea. At root, it's just a cop-out by a large cohort of pro-EU politicians who want desperately to stay in, but are too riven by faction and/or too frightened simply to vote to do so under their own authority.
And to keep potholes filled to stop cyclists going over their handlebars.
All the contortions of how to phrase it either lead back to the deal or to remain.
Leave without signing the withdrawal agreement
Mitigation policies are details that can be left up to the government.
Frankly the preferably option is that Parliament should stop fucking around and make up the decision to accept the deal or leave without a deal and stop looking for a way out. When they voted for Article 50 they created this situation.
I do a lot of long term bets and therefore often come across that problem.
I find that if I phone the bookie in question and ask them to send me a system snapshot of all my old outstanding bets, they will always do it.
Bit tedious, but gives peace of mind.
Especially if, like me, you have absolutely tons of long term speculative punts that come in!
:-)
And leaving without signing the Withdrawal Agreement will be solved by leaving with a Withdrawal Agreement.
My only observation is that the more it looks like we are moving to no deal the more likely a deal will eventually get through.
Combination of concessions from EU, Labour MPs peeling off as they realise No Deal is odds on to actually happen and some Tory tribal loyalty (still some residue left) kicking in at the last moment.
Our Irish friends are looking increasingly pale about the gills as they stare down the barrel. Leo not looking too confident now.
If it is true we have to attempt to extend to find another backstop. My preference would be to include a reentry option, rather than her bespoke deal.
If that is not possible it will be down to a Parliamentary vote to revoke A50 or no deal. In which case god help us.
"Early 18th century. England is at war with the French. Nevertheless, duck racing and pineapple eating are thriving."
Plus ca change plus c'est le meme chose.
Make sure you wear a helmet and sensible clothes = you victim blaming nazi
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/jan/04/cycling-uk-angered-by-highway-codes-victim-blaming-helmet-advice
So either way we will have a deal.
Now, people might not like the new deal but then when what they say they prefer (no deal) is actually impossible, they will have to lump it.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/04/brexit-ferry-firm-who-are-the-old-sea-dogs-behind-venture
When you combine that with traffic and risk-taking pedestrians on their phones it's very difficult and dangerous driving. Of course I'm going to try not to hit anyone, but a bit of a contribution on their side would be appreciated!
And that is a deal. And not having such a deal is what some people are proposing we should consult the British People about or indeed choose ourselves.
I mean you don't have to be Freddie Ayer to grasp the inherent absurdity.
As for the comments about reflective clothing, they're beyond ridiculous. By that argument motorists with good night vision shouldn't need to use lights at night and when they get hit, it's the other person's fault.